Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) has nothing to worry about. At least, that's what her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) says. Primrose's name is only in the Reaping once - which means she has a very, very small chance of being selected to participate in the Hunger Games. But when the fateful day comes, Primrose's name is the one pulled out of the glass bowl. Katniss immediately volunteers to take her little sister's place. And, just like that, she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are whisked away from dirt-poor District 12 to the sparkling Capitol. In a few short days, they find themselves inside an arena with twenty-two other young men and women in a fight to the death - the Hunger Games. But Katniss is determined to come through alive. After all, she promised her sister that she would do everything she could to win.
A good movie adaptation should always try to stay close to its source material. Unfortunately, the definition of "close" can be disputed when the two media are as different as books and movies. But no matter what definition one uses, The Hunger Games movie is very close to the book.
After the text in the beginning of the movie explains the concept behind the Games, the intensity jumps in and completely takes over. Right from the outset, terror reigns supreme. Primrose is terrified of being chosen, and though Katniss gently comforts her, the overall impression of the scene is one of entrapment in a cruel, unfair situation with an undertone of fear. This continues throughout the movie, getting successively amped up as the story develops. Considering that the book has a similar level of intensity (though not as immediate), this was quite an achievement for the filmmakers.
The level of intensity is not the only similarity between the movie and the book. The story is virtually identical, which is to be expected when one considers that Suzanne Collins, the author, helped write the screenplay. However, the most startingly accurate part is the characters. The casting job was about as perfect as it could be. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is maybe a little better looking than I would have made him, but everybody else is pretty much spot-on. Jennifer Lawrence, one of the best actresses I have ever seen, is Katniss to a T. Josh Hutcherson is gentle Peeta - but with a masculine side that could easily have been left out. Liam Hemsworth plays a strong, rebellious Gale. Even Donald Sutherland is good in his part. (Of course, bad actors are particularly good at exuding insincerity, so don't go thinking that this is an Academy-Award-worthy performance.)
However, while the story and characters don't deviate one iota from the book, there are a few themes left by the wayside. For example, the Capitol still exerts complete (or nearly complete) control over its citizens. But the Capitol as a mysterious, almost omnipotent - and almost faceless - power just doesn't exist in the movie. Whereas in the book the leaders are seen by Katniss from afar and only occasionally, these same leaders have their own scenes in the movie. This lowers the creepy sense of "The Capitol" that makes it akin to "Them" or "The Others." In other words, the sense of a looming, unseen (and, therefore, unassessed) power is largely gone.
Generally, I like to watch movies before I read the books on which they're based. Because books are nearly always much better than their movies, I get to enjoy the same story twice without being disappointed by the second version. But this movie is very, very close to the book - and is therefore not a disappointment. Because of this, Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games should be read before watching this movie. The book has much more depth - and explains things barely touched upon by the movie. On the other hand, while the movie doesn't quite live up to the book, it's still an enjoyable experience. That is, if your hands don't lock up after gripping the arms of your seat for two hours and twenty minutes.
Note: Since such a big deal has been made of it, I think I should address the issue of the violence. Is it too violent for a tweenager? Definitely. But I wouldn't go so far as to slap an "R" rating on it. There's a little blood, spears, necks broken by hands, and other kinds of violence. Much of it is hand-to-hand. But most of it is also filmed with a jerky camera or not quite seen. Because it doesn't have the same psychological terror associated with it, I would say that this movie is not as violent as The Dark Knight. But then, that's not saying a whole lot.
My Rating: T/MT (violence, intensity)
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Great Expectations (2011)
Pip (Douglas Booth) is a rather ordinary little boy. He lives with his sister and her husband, a blacksmith, and wants nothing more than to follow his brother-in-law into the trade. Then his entire life changes. First he encounters an escaped, chained convict named Magwitch (Ray Winstone), who makes Pip steal a file from the forge. He obliges out of fear, but he also brings along a piece of pie. Then Miss Havisham (Gillian Anderson), a great lady, asks him to her house to play with her adopted daughter Estella (Vanessa Kirby). Though his life may have been unexciting before, young Pip now has great expectations for the future.
This movie is very, very well done. Though a little dark and weird in the first hour (my sister says that grown Pip looks like a vampire in that part; I don't disagree), it brightens up with Pip's expectations. The acting, writing, and directing are all par with most British mini-series. In other words, they're fantastic. But even more than the production value, the filmmakers' decision to make it into a character study of nearly all the characters in the film makes it a worthwhile movie.
The entire focus of this version of Great Expectations is on the characters. It doesn't wallow in Pip's bad circumstances, and neither does it depict the story as a slow, painful descent into deeper and darker places. (In other words, it's nothing like the 1999 version with Ioan Gruffudd.) Instead, the filmmakers, sometimes lovingly and sometimes callously, push aside the well-known story in favor of the well-known but often neglected characters.
"Neglected" is not a word generally used to describe the character of Miss Havisham - even those who have not read the book know who she is. But any real complexity in her character seems to be overlooked in favor of the basic idea of her: She's a cold woman out for revenge on men. In contrast, this version of the film embodies her in an entirely different way. In this version, she is a woman whose anger never really allowed her to grow up. Her high-pitched voice, curled hair, thin body, and nervous habits together help to create the impression that she is a child possessed by childish rage. For another example, the sneaking, evil Orlick (Jack Roth) is small, thin, and looks almost like a wild animal - a wild animal tired of being chained and mocked. Pip looks the very picture of innocent youth. The list could go on, I believe, until every character in the movie has been listed.
The material point, to put it in the immortal words of I-don't-remember-which-BBC-movie-character, is that Great Expectations is about its people. There's certainly a story (complete with the requisite Dickens twists), but the story is dependent on the characters' choices and interactions, not the other way around. Ultimately, the point of Great Expectations is to show which people are, at heart, good and which are bad. Who can receive redemption, and whose heart is simply too black to even want it? Who is willing to change to receive it? You'll have to watch the movie to find out.
Note: Since I haven't read the book in years, I can't comment on how faithful this movie is. I've heard that it's not particularly close to Dickens' original - so purists beware!
My Rating: T (mild sexual content, sexual references, spooky images)
This movie is very, very well done. Though a little dark and weird in the first hour (my sister says that grown Pip looks like a vampire in that part; I don't disagree), it brightens up with Pip's expectations. The acting, writing, and directing are all par with most British mini-series. In other words, they're fantastic. But even more than the production value, the filmmakers' decision to make it into a character study of nearly all the characters in the film makes it a worthwhile movie.
The entire focus of this version of Great Expectations is on the characters. It doesn't wallow in Pip's bad circumstances, and neither does it depict the story as a slow, painful descent into deeper and darker places. (In other words, it's nothing like the 1999 version with Ioan Gruffudd.) Instead, the filmmakers, sometimes lovingly and sometimes callously, push aside the well-known story in favor of the well-known but often neglected characters.
"Neglected" is not a word generally used to describe the character of Miss Havisham - even those who have not read the book know who she is. But any real complexity in her character seems to be overlooked in favor of the basic idea of her: She's a cold woman out for revenge on men. In contrast, this version of the film embodies her in an entirely different way. In this version, she is a woman whose anger never really allowed her to grow up. Her high-pitched voice, curled hair, thin body, and nervous habits together help to create the impression that she is a child possessed by childish rage. For another example, the sneaking, evil Orlick (Jack Roth) is small, thin, and looks almost like a wild animal - a wild animal tired of being chained and mocked. Pip looks the very picture of innocent youth. The list could go on, I believe, until every character in the movie has been listed.
The material point, to put it in the immortal words of I-don't-remember-which-BBC-movie-character, is that Great Expectations is about its people. There's certainly a story (complete with the requisite Dickens twists), but the story is dependent on the characters' choices and interactions, not the other way around. Ultimately, the point of Great Expectations is to show which people are, at heart, good and which are bad. Who can receive redemption, and whose heart is simply too black to even want it? Who is willing to change to receive it? You'll have to watch the movie to find out.
Note: Since I haven't read the book in years, I can't comment on how faithful this movie is. I've heard that it's not particularly close to Dickens' original - so purists beware!
My Rating: T (mild sexual content, sexual references, spooky images)
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Madonna's Secret (1946)
James Corbin (Francis Lederer) has a deep, dark secret. Two, actually. The first is that the woman in his paintings is not his model, Helen North (Linda Stirling). The body might be, but the face is the face of a woman from his past. The second is that his name is not really Corbin. It's Corbet. The rather infamous Corbet who was tried for and acquitted of murdering his first model - the woman in his paintings. Then Helen turns up dead on the river and the questions begin again. Determined to discover his secrets, Helen's actress sister named Linda (Ann Rutherford) gets herself hired as Corbin's latest model. As time goes on, she finds herself stepping deeper and deeper into murky waters. What kind of man is this brooding, talented artist? Is he a murderer? Or is some unknown enemy trying to frame him?
This is a fairly impressive movie, considering when it was filmed. The production values are decent. It seems to be an odd sort of cross between the film noir genre and an Agatha Christie story. Definitely dark, dramatic, and a little bit of a psychological thriller in parts, it still manages to hold onto a bit of the good old-fashioned mystery story.
Taken as a forties B movie, the acting and especially the writing are pretty good. Lederer plays a marvelous Corbin (with the exception of a few rather strangely-directed scenes), and Rutherford pulls off sweet and spunky Linda better than a lot of actresses I've seen. The exposition is particularly well done. In general, conversations reveal only as much as the viewer needs to know. On top of that, I never felt like I was listening to a voice-over. (Well, except for the opening line. But that really is a voice-over.) The Madonna's Secret shows the story as it is without taking the time to make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on at all times. That's part of the charm of the film noir genre: One can never be too sure that one didn't miss something important.
The other film noir elements in this movie are pretty obvious. It's dark, with a conflicted main character (who may or may not be bad) and a girl who ultimately finds herself in over her head. There's also a sexy temptress and, of course, crime in the mix. But the crime part is also a bit like an Agatha Christie murder mystery as well. Clues are established as to who might be killing these girls, but these clues are subtle enough that they don't construct neon signs pointing to the murderer. (At least, I hope not. I totally missed them until the last scene of the movie. Of course, that could be because I didn't want to think that that person was the murderer. But I'd better shut up now; that's getting into spoiler territory.)
Judged by the standards of its peers (both in time and in genre), this movie is pretty decent. The production values are impressively high for such an old and evidently cheap movie, and the slight mixing of genres is interesting and well-done enough to earn The Madonna's Secret a spot on the list of old movies that are worth someone's time.
My Rating: T (frightening scenes, thematic elements)
This is a fairly impressive movie, considering when it was filmed. The production values are decent. It seems to be an odd sort of cross between the film noir genre and an Agatha Christie story. Definitely dark, dramatic, and a little bit of a psychological thriller in parts, it still manages to hold onto a bit of the good old-fashioned mystery story.
Taken as a forties B movie, the acting and especially the writing are pretty good. Lederer plays a marvelous Corbin (with the exception of a few rather strangely-directed scenes), and Rutherford pulls off sweet and spunky Linda better than a lot of actresses I've seen. The exposition is particularly well done. In general, conversations reveal only as much as the viewer needs to know. On top of that, I never felt like I was listening to a voice-over. (Well, except for the opening line. But that really is a voice-over.) The Madonna's Secret shows the story as it is without taking the time to make sure everybody knows exactly what's going on at all times. That's part of the charm of the film noir genre: One can never be too sure that one didn't miss something important.
The other film noir elements in this movie are pretty obvious. It's dark, with a conflicted main character (who may or may not be bad) and a girl who ultimately finds herself in over her head. There's also a sexy temptress and, of course, crime in the mix. But the crime part is also a bit like an Agatha Christie murder mystery as well. Clues are established as to who might be killing these girls, but these clues are subtle enough that they don't construct neon signs pointing to the murderer. (At least, I hope not. I totally missed them until the last scene of the movie. Of course, that could be because I didn't want to think that that person was the murderer. But I'd better shut up now; that's getting into spoiler territory.)
Judged by the standards of its peers (both in time and in genre), this movie is pretty decent. The production values are impressively high for such an old and evidently cheap movie, and the slight mixing of genres is interesting and well-done enough to earn The Madonna's Secret a spot on the list of old movies that are worth someone's time.
My Rating: T (frightening scenes, thematic elements)
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Onegin (1999)
Onegin (Ralph Fiennes) is a lonely, bored, spoilt aristocrat. He has no real friends, a cash supply that can no longer support his decadent lifestyle, and absolutely no goals in life. Then his uncle dies and leaves him an inheritance that includes both money and a country estate. Onegin leaves St. Petersburg for this estate - and, once there, decides to stay. Suddenly life seems better. He makes a close friend and meets a beautiful young lady named Natalya (Liv Tyler). Can a man ever really change? Or does a long life of sophistication and pride leave him without the backbone to alter his future?
This movie really hasn't much story development. At least, compared with the five to eight hour masterpieces made by the BBC. Suffice it to say that the novel on which Onegin is based was written in verse - and that this is highly appropriate in light of the poetic justice that is meted out at the end. Choices - some good and some bad - are paramount. This is true with the choices made by the filmmakers as well.
Onegin moves at a dreamlike pace in parts. The movie is really only about an hour and forty-five minutes long, but it seems much longer. This is helped in part by the frequent use of slow-motion filming. In general, slow motion should not be used in movies. It jerks the viewer out of the movie and into his/her seat and lends a very melodramatic atmosphere to whatever scene upon which it has been inflicted. The slow motion in Onegin, on the other hand, is sometimes used in good taste. Feelings like boredom and despair are portrayed well by the use of slow motion. But the technique is used too frequently, and it becomes evident that slow motion is being used to create the illusion of a longer movie.
Having said all that, one of the most redeeming qualities of the movie is that it is visually quite pretty. The filmmakes chose Liv Tyler as the lead female role. Normally a bad actress and a bit strange looking, she fits Tatyana's part perfectly and is absolutely gorgeous. Her clothes and hair are stunning throughout the movie. She shines particularly brightly in the last few scenes of the movie, when her hair is not as severely twisted and her clothes are richer in color and texture. The choice of setting is very pretty as well. The Russian countryside is beautiful in both the winter and summer scenes.
Finally, the filmmakers chose to convey as much as possible visually and through dialogues that would naturally take place. For example, we see rather than are told that Onegin is a ladies' man (although I personally think this could have been left out, it's handled rather delicately). Later, Tatyana speaks of her troubles to no one, but what passes through her mind is evident by what she does (again, this could have been skipped or shown in a more family-friendly way). This is a good approach for a filmmaker to take. There are few things in movies that are more cringe-inducing than when unnatural dialogue, which would never have taken place in real life, is used to explain to the viewer certain plots developments. Like slow motion filming, such unnatural dialogue almost inevitably tears the viewer from the story.
In all, Onegin is a strange mixture of good and bad choices. This is evident in the story (which I will not reveal for spoiler reasons), but it is also evident in the way in which the filmmakers made the movie. The slow motion is sometimes effective - and sometimes not. The use of "show, don't tell" is effective - but also a bit risqué. In other words, it's a flawed but interesting movie, perfect for anyone willing to spend a slice of time on watching the consequences of choice.
My Rating: MT (bedroom scene between a man and wife, sexual content, sexual references , violence)
Note: Could be appropriate for younger teens if a few scenes are skipped
This movie really hasn't much story development. At least, compared with the five to eight hour masterpieces made by the BBC. Suffice it to say that the novel on which Onegin is based was written in verse - and that this is highly appropriate in light of the poetic justice that is meted out at the end. Choices - some good and some bad - are paramount. This is true with the choices made by the filmmakers as well.
Onegin moves at a dreamlike pace in parts. The movie is really only about an hour and forty-five minutes long, but it seems much longer. This is helped in part by the frequent use of slow-motion filming. In general, slow motion should not be used in movies. It jerks the viewer out of the movie and into his/her seat and lends a very melodramatic atmosphere to whatever scene upon which it has been inflicted. The slow motion in Onegin, on the other hand, is sometimes used in good taste. Feelings like boredom and despair are portrayed well by the use of slow motion. But the technique is used too frequently, and it becomes evident that slow motion is being used to create the illusion of a longer movie.
Having said all that, one of the most redeeming qualities of the movie is that it is visually quite pretty. The filmmakes chose Liv Tyler as the lead female role. Normally a bad actress and a bit strange looking, she fits Tatyana's part perfectly and is absolutely gorgeous. Her clothes and hair are stunning throughout the movie. She shines particularly brightly in the last few scenes of the movie, when her hair is not as severely twisted and her clothes are richer in color and texture. The choice of setting is very pretty as well. The Russian countryside is beautiful in both the winter and summer scenes.
Finally, the filmmakers chose to convey as much as possible visually and through dialogues that would naturally take place. For example, we see rather than are told that Onegin is a ladies' man (although I personally think this could have been left out, it's handled rather delicately). Later, Tatyana speaks of her troubles to no one, but what passes through her mind is evident by what she does (again, this could have been skipped or shown in a more family-friendly way). This is a good approach for a filmmaker to take. There are few things in movies that are more cringe-inducing than when unnatural dialogue, which would never have taken place in real life, is used to explain to the viewer certain plots developments. Like slow motion filming, such unnatural dialogue almost inevitably tears the viewer from the story.
In all, Onegin is a strange mixture of good and bad choices. This is evident in the story (which I will not reveal for spoiler reasons), but it is also evident in the way in which the filmmakers made the movie. The slow motion is sometimes effective - and sometimes not. The use of "show, don't tell" is effective - but also a bit risqué. In other words, it's a flawed but interesting movie, perfect for anyone willing to spend a slice of time on watching the consequences of choice.
My Rating: MT (bedroom scene between a man and wife, sexual content, sexual references , violence)
Note: Could be appropriate for younger teens if a few scenes are skipped
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Pertaining To The More the Merrier
Mr. Dingle (Charles Coburn) is an amiable older gentleman who shows up in Washington D.C. to help with the housing problem. WWII is well underway, and the capitol city is literally over-flowing with people trying to do their patriotic duty. One such person is young, unmarried Constance Milligan (Jean Arthur). To help with the housing shortage, she advertizes to sublet half her apartment - and Mr. Dingle finagles his way in. Soon he decides that she needs a "high-type, clean-cut, nice young fellow." So he finagles his way further into her life by renting half of his half of the apartment to a young man named Sgt. Joe Carter (Joel McCrea). Who happens to be a high-type, clean-cut, nice young fellow. And very much available.
This is very definitely a "screwball" comedy. The storyline verges on the ridiculous, and everything is very much accelerated. (Though that seems to be the case in most romantic comedies; how do people fall in love that fast?) At the same time, a suspicious-minded person would call it "propaganda." Connie repeatedly says that subletting half her apartment is her "patriotic duty" - the implication being thus: Who knows what wonderful things could happen to you if you did your patriotic duty?
Ultimately, there were three things that sold me on this movie. First, it's one of those hilarious romantic comedies that very much follows the formula: One has an idiot significant other, but is thrown together with a different person due to unforeseen and unescapable circumstances. In just a few short days, the one and the different other find that they're in love, but neither wants to ruin anything by striking up a real relationship. And the list of the other romcom elements goes on. However, this movie is cleaner than most modern romantic comedies, though it has no fewer funny scenes. Second, I've seen the lead actor in another movie and really liked him. He's not a great actor, but I like the characters he portrays. Third, the characters are lovable. Connie is the sweetest thing. Joe is not quite as "high-type" as Mr. Dingle thinks, but he's still a good man. And Mr. Dingle is the perfect picture of a meddlesome older man who thinks he knows best for everyone - and really does.
My Rating: OK (thematic elements, very mild sexual content and references)
This is very definitely a "screwball" comedy. The storyline verges on the ridiculous, and everything is very much accelerated. (Though that seems to be the case in most romantic comedies; how do people fall in love that fast?) At the same time, a suspicious-minded person would call it "propaganda." Connie repeatedly says that subletting half her apartment is her "patriotic duty" - the implication being thus: Who knows what wonderful things could happen to you if you did your patriotic duty?
Ultimately, there were three things that sold me on this movie. First, it's one of those hilarious romantic comedies that very much follows the formula: One has an idiot significant other, but is thrown together with a different person due to unforeseen and unescapable circumstances. In just a few short days, the one and the different other find that they're in love, but neither wants to ruin anything by striking up a real relationship. And the list of the other romcom elements goes on. However, this movie is cleaner than most modern romantic comedies, though it has no fewer funny scenes. Second, I've seen the lead actor in another movie and really liked him. He's not a great actor, but I like the characters he portrays. Third, the characters are lovable. Connie is the sweetest thing. Joe is not quite as "high-type" as Mr. Dingle thinks, but he's still a good man. And Mr. Dingle is the perfect picture of a meddlesome older man who thinks he knows best for everyone - and really does.
My Rating: OK (thematic elements, very mild sexual content and references)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
On A Smile as Big as the Moon
Mike Kersjes (John Corbett) teaches a special ed class at a high school. He has a special group of kids with disabilities ranging from Down syndrome to the "alphabet" kind like ADHD. One day, the kids go on a field trip to a museum - and come back with pamphlets advertising Space Camp. A place for "gifted" students, Space Camp sounds like the coolest thing ever to more than one of the kids. So Mike decides to make it happen. Unfortunately, he has to 1) get his superiors to okay the trip, 2) get Space Camp to agree, 3) raise enough money, and 4) get the kids into the proper physical and especially mental state. It ain't gonna be easy.
All right, I'll just start off by saying this is a Hallmark movie. But it's so much better than one of their typical movies that I forgot it was even Hallmark. Or I would have forgotten if there weren't so many Hallmark card commercials.
Back to my review. The acting, writing, and story are amazing for a TV movie. A Smile as Big as the Moon wouldn't win any Academy Awards if it was a theater release, but it's really more than just passable. At least one of the kids is played by someone with the real disability, and the others seem to be pretty darn good actors. John Corbett is good as Mike. And that's pretty much everybody who has a big part.
So the production is good - and the story is better. People so often forget that disabilities don't define people. Yes, psychologists, I'm looking at you. Special ed kids are so often marginalized just because they happen to have difficulty reading, concentrating, remembering, or even just comprehending. They get labeled so that everyone sees them as "Down syndromes with people" (so to speak) instead of "people with Down syndrome." Then the kids' development is stunted because they're told they "can't do that" because their brains or other parts of them work differently. The only words to describe that viewpoint are ones that I prefer not to use. A Smile as Big as the Moon tears down that horrible inversion by showing just how much kids are capable of achieving if they're only given the chance and a helping hand.
My Rating: OK (mild language)
All right, I'll just start off by saying this is a Hallmark movie. But it's so much better than one of their typical movies that I forgot it was even Hallmark. Or I would have forgotten if there weren't so many Hallmark card commercials.
Back to my review. The acting, writing, and story are amazing for a TV movie. A Smile as Big as the Moon wouldn't win any Academy Awards if it was a theater release, but it's really more than just passable. At least one of the kids is played by someone with the real disability, and the others seem to be pretty darn good actors. John Corbett is good as Mike. And that's pretty much everybody who has a big part.
So the production is good - and the story is better. People so often forget that disabilities don't define people. Yes, psychologists, I'm looking at you. Special ed kids are so often marginalized just because they happen to have difficulty reading, concentrating, remembering, or even just comprehending. They get labeled so that everyone sees them as "Down syndromes with people" (so to speak) instead of "people with Down syndrome." Then the kids' development is stunted because they're told they "can't do that" because their brains or other parts of them work differently. The only words to describe that viewpoint are ones that I prefer not to use. A Smile as Big as the Moon tears down that horrible inversion by showing just how much kids are capable of achieving if they're only given the chance and a helping hand.
My Rating: OK (mild language)
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Concerning Red
Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is a retiree with a very dull time of it. For kicks, he tears up his retirement checks so he can call Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) at the help desk. Of course, the fact that he, as he puts it, "likes" her might have something to do with that, too. But then one day a bunch of assassins come to his house and try to kill him. As an ex-CIA agent, Frank takes care of them without a problem. Thrown into a fight he didn't choose, he still leaps at the chance to get back into some of his old habits - and save (and impress) Sarah in the meantime.
This is going to sound like a very strange parallel, so brace yourself. This movie is like a Jane Austen story with a lot of bullets. Oh, there's a lot more excitement in Red (and a lot more bullets) and perhaps the language is a little worse. But Red is driven by the funny, likeable characters, just like an Austen story.
First there's Frank, who's a tough guy with a giant soft spot. Then there are all his old spy friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and especially the really odd and extremely paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich). Each has his/her own unique character, complete with body language and a sense of humor. Finally, Sarah is hilarious. She's so sarcastic and frank it's funny, and she never once slips out of character.
Granted, the characters are not quite as filled out or varied as those created by Austen, but I think the parallel still holds. Regardless of whether this reaches mastery or not, Red is a fun couple of hours with lots of shooting (explosions, too), funny lines, and very likeable characters. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: T (violence, language, mild sexual content)
This is going to sound like a very strange parallel, so brace yourself. This movie is like a Jane Austen story with a lot of bullets. Oh, there's a lot more excitement in Red (and a lot more bullets) and perhaps the language is a little worse. But Red is driven by the funny, likeable characters, just like an Austen story.
First there's Frank, who's a tough guy with a giant soft spot. Then there are all his old spy friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and especially the really odd and extremely paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich). Each has his/her own unique character, complete with body language and a sense of humor. Finally, Sarah is hilarious. She's so sarcastic and frank it's funny, and she never once slips out of character.
Granted, the characters are not quite as filled out or varied as those created by Austen, but I think the parallel still holds. Regardless of whether this reaches mastery or not, Red is a fun couple of hours with lots of shooting (explosions, too), funny lines, and very likeable characters. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: T (violence, language, mild sexual content)
Friday, December 23, 2011
The Hobbit Trailer!!!!!
Okay, this is soooooooooooooo much better than I thought it would be! The character list (Frodo? Legolas?) and various other things were rather worrisome and indicated that perhaps Peter Jackson and company would not be particularly faithful to the book. But this! This is awesome.
The dwarves look much I remember they do in the book - rather short and stout and not nearly as fearsome as in their publicity stills. It looks as if there will be a Shire sequence to rival even that in The Fellowship of the Ring, only with dwarves added! And most of the scenes (Galadriel excluded) seem straight out of the book, right down to the dwarves tumbling into Bilbo's house. Martin Freeman is very nearly perfect for Bilbo - though perhaps not quite as Ian-Holm-like as I would wish.
In short, LOTR fans should be positively drooling over this trailer. Here's a question: If there's enough footage to put out this trailer, why do we have to wait until next December to see the whole movie?!!
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Hunger Games Trailer
Well, the reason why I read the Hunger Games trilogy in the first place was because I noticed this trailer for the movie starring Jennifer Lawrence that is slated to come out next year.
I loved the trailer when I first saw it, not least because I love Jennifer Lawrence. She's fantastic as Raven in X-Men: First Class and even better as Ree in Winter's Bone. Here she plays tough, thick-skinned Katniss - a perfect casting if I ever did see one.
Everything looks very close to the book, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. I confess I never imagined Cinna as dark-skinned. Somehow I think the Capitol would not have approved of minorities. The overall fidelity to the book is great, however - I loved the book, and I think it would make a great movie if one or two parts are dumbed down violence-wise.
All the movies will likely remain close to the books, since author Suzanne Collins is in on the writing (thanks to lostdog from The Wind-Up Dog Chronicles for that info). This is both good and bad, since I liked the series until the end of the third book. Unfortunately, while I might go see the first movie and possibly the second, I have no interest in seeing the third one unless the ultimate message of the story is changed. Since Collins will probably not consent to changing that message, I have low hopes for the third installment of the series.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Pertaining To Captain America: The First Avenger
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is an ordinary guy. Except for his asthma and other health difficulties. And his weight - about one hundred pounds, and he's a grown man. But the thing that really sets him apart is his heart. Far more courageous than he should be given his physical stature, he would do anything to join in WWII over in Europe. Even lie on his enlistment form, which he does with regularity only to be turned down because of his health. Then one day, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a researcher for the United States military, offers Steve a chance to help his country. The little guy jumps at the opportunity. But when something goes wrong and he is relegated to selling war bonds and making propaganda movies, he thinks he may have gotten less than he bargained for.
This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.
The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.
But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*
The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.
My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)
Reviews of similar movies:
This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.
The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.
But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*
The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.
My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)
Reviews of similar movies:
- X-Men: First Class
- Spider-Man: First, Second, and Third
- Thor
Friday, November 18, 2011
Snow Whites and the Fourteen Dwarves?
Two Snow White movies in one year! Both have trailers, so I thought I'd write a few observations.
MM has by far the better actress for Snow White. I've never seen the Twilight series (and never care to), but I can say right now that I just don't like Kristen Stewart in the role of Snow White. Stewart's kind of "beauty" is purely fashionable - a pouty chin and not much else to recommend her. Her lips are "red as blood"? Her hair "black as night"? I don't think so. Plus, the story has had to be altered a little ("You are the fairest, but there is another destined to surpass you") because no one with eyes to see would think Kristen Stewart is fairer than Charlize Theron, the evil queen. On the other hand, Lily Collins has been given black hair, white skin, and red lips to fit with her character. Julia Roberts plays the queen as a convincingly (slightly) fading beauty who isn't quite as pretty as Snow White.
Unfortunately, SWATH looks like a far better fairy tale than MM. For one thing, MM looks like it has been hopelessly updated. The characters speak in modern language made harsher by their American accents. And changing it so that Snow White saves the prince? Not loving that idea. (Although, as an aside, the trailer seems to hint that this doesn't really happen.) In contrast, SWATH has a Lord of the Rings/Eragon oldness that I rather like. Additionally, though Snow White goes into battle, she still must be saved by the kiss. However, that retainment of the climax in the fairy tale also creates a contradiction in the movie. Why make her a "tough girl" if she's going to end up being saved by her man anyway? That only makes her look worse - she tries to be "tough" (read: like a man) and take care of herself, but she pathetically fails. Unless the kiss is before the battle, which would be completely anticlimactic and ridiculous.
Just as a footnote, the content in both movies looks borderline. For SWATH, I understand that someone obsessed with beauty (like the queen) would do some pretty evil and/or eyebrow-raisingly bizarre things. Like bathing in white liquid. Or stabbing a man in bed. Plus, I don't mind sexy content (within reason) as long as it is portrayed as bad. So the content in SWATH, though it appears not as good as I would like, is excusable. But the content in MM looks like it's supposed to be funny. It also looks like the movie will be marketed to tweens. (With that kind of humor? I hope teens and up don't think it's side-splittingly funny.) With both these elements, and MM may cross a line or two with its content.
Mirror, Mirror with Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, and Armie Hammer
Snow White and the Huntsman with Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, and Chris Hemsworth
Unfortunately, SWATH looks like a far better fairy tale than MM. For one thing, MM looks like it has been hopelessly updated. The characters speak in modern language made harsher by their American accents. And changing it so that Snow White saves the prince? Not loving that idea. (Although, as an aside, the trailer seems to hint that this doesn't really happen.) In contrast, SWATH has a Lord of the Rings/Eragon oldness that I rather like. Additionally, though Snow White goes into battle, she still must be saved by the kiss. However, that retainment of the climax in the fairy tale also creates a contradiction in the movie. Why make her a "tough girl" if she's going to end up being saved by her man anyway? That only makes her look worse - she tries to be "tough" (read: like a man) and take care of herself, but she pathetically fails. Unless the kiss is before the battle, which would be completely anticlimactic and ridiculous.
Just as a footnote, the content in both movies looks borderline. For SWATH, I understand that someone obsessed with beauty (like the queen) would do some pretty evil and/or eyebrow-raisingly bizarre things. Like bathing in white liquid. Or stabbing a man in bed. Plus, I don't mind sexy content (within reason) as long as it is portrayed as bad. So the content in SWATH, though it appears not as good as I would like, is excusable. But the content in MM looks like it's supposed to be funny. It also looks like the movie will be marketed to tweens. (With that kind of humor? I hope teens and up don't think it's side-splittingly funny.) With both these elements, and MM may cross a line or two with its content.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Concerning He Knew He Was Right
(Based on the book by Anthony Trollope.) Louis Trevelyan (Oliver Dimsdale) is a happily married man. He has a beautiful, spirited young wife named Emily (Laura Fraser) and an adorable son. But, as he tells his good friend Hugh Stanbury (Stephen Campbell Moore), marriage isn't always a bed of roses. In fact, Louis is very worried about his marriage. Emily's godfather Colonel Osborne (Bill Nighy) has been seeing a lot of her lately. He's known for dallying about with married women, and Emily is so inexperienced in society. Of course, Louis doesn't really suspect her of doing anything wrong. But then, Colonel Osborne seems to have a way with women...
Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.
First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.
Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.
The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.
Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.
My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)
Reviews of similar movies:
Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.
First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.
Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.
The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.
Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.
My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)
Reviews of similar movies:
Friday, November 4, 2011
Untitled Blog Post
More pictures from the Snow White movie coming out next year! (Link to the movie's IMDb page here.)
Reasons for excitement: I love the costumes and overall look. The pictures almost look like illustrations from an old fairy tale book. I also loved Lily Collins in The Blind Side - she'll make a good Snow White. And - this is very important in a fairy tale - the hero looks absolutely gorgeous.
Reasons for dismay: While the whole "look" of the movie fits with the traditional Snow White template, it looks like there are some liberties being taken with the story. It seems as if Snow White will end up leading her troops into battle against the evil queen - when will Hollywood get tired of that story element? What's with this fascination with fighting female protagonists? And what about the kiss?
Reasons for curiosity: It will be interesting to see Julia Roberts as an evil enchantress. I've seen her in two roles (Tess in the Ocean's movies and Alice in Conspiracy Theory), and neither comes close to evil, much less enchantress. But I trust she has the grace needed for the enchantress and can muster enough coolness to pull off the evil part.
Reasons for excitement: I love the costumes and overall look. The pictures almost look like illustrations from an old fairy tale book. I also loved Lily Collins in The Blind Side - she'll make a good Snow White. And - this is very important in a fairy tale - the hero looks absolutely gorgeous.
Reasons for dismay: While the whole "look" of the movie fits with the traditional Snow White template, it looks like there are some liberties being taken with the story. It seems as if Snow White will end up leading her troops into battle against the evil queen - when will Hollywood get tired of that story element? What's with this fascination with fighting female protagonists? And what about the kiss?
Reasons for curiosity: It will be interesting to see Julia Roberts as an evil enchantress. I've seen her in two roles (Tess in the Ocean's movies and Alice in Conspiracy Theory), and neither comes close to evil, much less enchantress. But I trust she has the grace needed for the enchantress and can muster enough coolness to pull off the evil part.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
On Arch of Triumph
Dr. Ravic (Charles Boyer) is an illegal immigrant in France on the eve before WWII. Of course, Ravic isn't his real name. An Austrian who was imprisoned and tortured by the Nazis, he now spends his time helping other immigrants and avoiding the police. He stumbles across a nightclub singer named Joan Madou (Ingrid Bergman), who turns out to be a needy immigrant. The two embark on a love affair that can only end in tragedy when Ravic spots the man who tortured him in Germany. Now he wants to make sure that man doesn't return to Germany to torture others. The only way he can do that is to put him in a grave.
I apologize for the short post, but I'm running a bit short on time.
This movie is well-acted (particularly by Ingrid Bergman), fairly well-written, and pretty engaging. It's a bit weird to see Charles Boyer play an Austrian with his very heavy French accent. Also, Charles Laughton plays the evil Nazi - with a really bad "German" accent. Ah well, almost all movies have their foibles. This one's are apparently mismatched accents.
The foibles weren't the worst thing about this movie, though. The ending is horrible. No movie is good without a happy ending. I don't mean an ending that goes "and they all lived happily ever after." One of my favorite movie endings is one where literally almost half the characters die. At any rate, the ending to this movie is tragic. And that ruins what would otherwise be a pretty decent film.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, violence)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
I apologize for the short post, but I'm running a bit short on time.
This movie is well-acted (particularly by Ingrid Bergman), fairly well-written, and pretty engaging. It's a bit weird to see Charles Boyer play an Austrian with his very heavy French accent. Also, Charles Laughton plays the evil Nazi - with a really bad "German" accent. Ah well, almost all movies have their foibles. This one's are apparently mismatched accents.
The foibles weren't the worst thing about this movie, though. The ending is horrible. No movie is good without a happy ending. I don't mean an ending that goes "and they all lived happily ever after." One of my favorite movie endings is one where literally almost half the characters die. At any rate, the ending to this movie is tragic. And that ruins what would otherwise be a pretty decent film.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, violence)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Pertaining To X-Men: First Class
Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.
James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.
Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.
The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.
Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*
Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)
* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.
Reviews of similar movies:
Friday, October 14, 2011
First Avengers Trailer Released
*squeals with delight* Okay, now that I'm over my initial thrill, I just have to say that this looks awesome. First, a genuine conglomeration of superheroes, with their own quirks and coolnesses, put into one movie. Second, only Hawkeye's character needs to be established, since the others have had their own movies or at least a fairly major part in another's movie. That means the movie can get right down to the business of saving the world - or avenging it. Finally, Loki looks like he has progressed to a little bit better character. If that is the case, this movie's going to be one for the ages.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
On The Incredible Hulk
As the result of a military science experiment, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) transforms into a mindless beast every time his pulse rate hits 200. Now he must hide in South America with no connections to his former life - he even had to leave the love of his life, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), behind. But when the military discovers where he is, they come after him with lots of firepower. Bruce soon finds himself caught up in a deadly battle with military commandos led by the increasingly out-of-control Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). But Bruce suspects that his greatest enemy just might be himself.
Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.
Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*
All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.
Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)
Other superhero movies:
Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.
Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*
All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.
Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.
My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)
Other superhero movies:
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
In Relation To Jane Eyre (2011)
(Based on the book by Charlotte Bronte.) A lonely, lost young woman collapses on the doorstep of a minister and his sisters. She says her name is Jane Elliot, but her real name is Jane Eyre (Mia Wasikowska). Her life has been rather hard, and she flees from something - or someone - in her past. After a miserable childhood, she was happy during her time as governess at Thornfield Hall, particularly when her employer Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) was at home. But something happened to crush her happiness and make her willing - adamant, in fact - to leave her life and start afresh under a new name.
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Adaptations of classics must always be compared to the original book. Out of the five Jane Eyre adaptations I had seen and remembered, only the 1980s version satisfied me from a faithful adaptation standpoint. Even that one has its serious difficulties - Jane's age, in point of fact. Since Jane's youth is such a huge part of her character, picking a late-twenties actress who looked like she was in her mid-thirties wasn't a good casting job. But this one, this newest Jane Eyre, is by far the best adaptation I have seen.
Mia Wasikowska is the perfect actress to play Jane. She is not too pretty, but not ugly either. Her age (early twenties) is close enough to Jane's nineteen years to be believable. But best of all, she has a sort of quiet grace and self-possession. Underneath this grace runs a sparkling, elusive little thread of passion that glimmers every once in a while. That is exactly how I imagine Jane.
Michael Fassbender plays a terrific Mr. Rochester as well. (Note: I was predisposed to think well of him since I fell in love during X-Men: First Class. However, I think I can honestly say he's a very good Mr. Rochester.) He definitely looks older than Jane, and has a sort of world-weary look about him. He plays bored, amused, and angry well - though the angry could have been a little more passionate. Thankfully, the filmmakers made up for this by putting in the scene where he plays the piano and then goes outside and starts shooting at birds. The crowning moment that really sold me on Fassbender's performance was the scene in the library, where Jane reduces him to tears. Very few actors can cry like that and retain their masculinity so well.
Even though this version is considerably shorter than the 80s one, I think it sticks to the book quite as well. Many of Jane's childhood scenes are thankfully eliminated or at least shortened - filmmakers generally choose the same ones and directly quote from the book. I practically have them memorized. Also, these childhood scenes are broken up with scenes from the present - a handy tool to help keep the monotony of those sadly necessary scenes at bay. Less time is also spent on St. John Rivers's (Jamie Bell) character. The important elements remain (his hardness, his proposal), but the lesser elements are gone. The only two scenes I wish had been in the movie were the veil scene and the scene where Mr. Rochester tells Jane about Adèle's (Romy Settbon Moore) mother. Both these are in the deleted scenes, and after watching the veil scene, I am quite happy that it was left out of the movie. It makes me shudder just to think of it. Besides, those scenes are clichéd by now because they're in practically every movie.
In short, there have been omissions, but no additions from what I can remember. The movie follows the book faithfully and retains all the important things - particularly Jane's and Mr. Rochester's characters. Devotees of the book will, of course, want to watch the 1980s version, but I prefer this one. In a quiet, solemn sort of way, it remains faithful to the spirit and substance of the book whilst it pares the story down to a manageable two hours. That is masterful filmmaking.
My Rating: T (thematic elements, a lingering look at a nude painting of a woman)
Other Jane Eyre reviews:
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Concerning Spellbound
(Suggested by The House of Dr. Edwardes by Frances Beeding.) Constance Petersen (Ingrid Bergman) is strictly a woman of science. One of her coworkere at the mental hospital Green Manors refers to her as a "human glacier." Then she meets handsome Dr. Edwardes (Gregory Peck), the new head of Green Manors. He sweeps her off her feet, but she soon discovers that there's something odd about him. He seems to be on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and it isn't long before Constance discovers that he isn't Dr. Edwardes at all. In fact, he's suffering from amnesia - and a deep-seated belief that he killed Dr. Edwardes.
Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.
The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.
The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.
Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.
(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)
My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, and Gregory Peck. I'm in classic movie heaven. Seriously though, this is one of Hitchcock's better movies, but not quite his best. Ingrid Bergman is as wonderful as she always was, the romance is very sweet, and, of course, it's very suspenseful. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis part and the frankly laughable directing and special effects keep Spellbound from being anything more than just enjoyable.
The special effects are pretty typical for a forties movie. Dummies are used for the dangerous stunts, etc. The directing has its problems, too. Hitchcock could sure pick a story, but sometimes his use of the camera could be a little odd. In Spellbound, he attempted to make the viewer feel like one of the characters at various points in the film. For example, when a character drinks a glass of milk, the glass is held up to the camera and tipped as if the camera was drinking. Unfortunately, it's not very effective when the milk covers the screen. One's vision is never blocked out by the milk one is drinking. There's another scene that is meant to resemble a surrealist painting and ends up looking, well, rather ridiculous. You'll recognize the one if/when you watch the movie.
The psychoanalysis is a bit more disturbing than the lameness, though it's not as blatant. Put simply, psychoanalysis is a load of tripe. You can read a more in-depth article about the subject here, but the underlying principle of psychoanalysis is that our will is subordinated to our instincts. According to psychoanalysts, our true selves are found in our unconscious longings - particularly unfulfilled longings. When suppressed, these longings cause us to act insansely. (That smells suspiciously like secular ideas of today...) There are other problematic aspects as well. However, as a simple therapeutic method, psychoanalysis is morally acceptable (if mentally dangerous) because doctors simply probe the minds of their patients for reasons why the patients are unstable. Fortunately, Spellbound generally sticks to the basic, more vanilla therapeutic application of psychoanalysis. Because of this, the movie doesn't get swallowed up in bad philosophy.
Fundamentally, Spellbound is a Hitchcock movie. There's some doubt as to the morality of the main characters, there are surprises and numerous dangerous situations, and almost the whole movie is drenched in suspense that occasionally gets a little over the top. There's also a hint of something out of touch with reality - in this case, psychoanalysis. But the merits of the movie outweigh its deficiencies, and I have to admit it cast a spell on me.
(Yes, I'm thoroughly ashamed of myself for using that pun.)
My Rating: T (thematic elements, frightening images and ideas)
Reviews of similar books or movies:
Friday, September 23, 2011
Are We Dancing?
Question:
Why doesn't anyone dance like this anymore?
a) because there's nobody like Gene Kelly.
b) because true dancing is très passé
c) because "dancing" is just a code word for "flaunt your stuff"
d) all of the above
Answer: d) all of the above
Clip from It's Always Fair Weather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)